Monthly Archives: April 2011
The Corruption of The Catholic Church
Speaking as an ex catholic, and one who has become a Christian and got a degree in Bible; I can say that 95% of catholic doctrine is in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches. I was also a Baptist minister for a number of years. I make my case for your consideration and invite your comments.
The Catholic Doctrine of Limbo
Catholics have the doctrine that we are all stained by original sin and the only solution is to be baptized as a baby to remove that stain so that if the baby dies before reaching the age of reason or accountability, they will go to heaven. This would mean that if the parents neglected to baptize the baby and it died it would be deprived of heaven through the fault of the parents. Catholics use fear and intimidation to force people to follow their religion. Here is my scriptural answer to parents causing the baby to lose heaven.
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the sin of the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sins. Deut 24:16
By the way, this scriptural principle also would have to do with the argument that if a woman were raped, she should be able to have an abortion. Would she not be providing the death penalty for the baby for the sin of the father? I offer my understanding of what the bible says about this:
At the same time, came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it would be better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck and that he be drowned in the sea. Take heed that you despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven. Math 18: 1-2,6,10
It would seem obvious to me that this doctrine has been disproved by scripture. Catholics are big on making up rules in addition to the Bible. We will provide scriptures to answer that in the next post. I will be addressing Catholic doctrine and showing what the bible says about it in future blogs.
California: The Next Detroit
By: Tyler Sonksen
Golden State Alliance for Liberty
Last week Republican California lawmakers and the Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom traveled to Texas to ask several businesses: why did they leave California and why did they overwhelmingly choose to move to Texas? These representatives seem to believe there is a secret answer to the successes of Texas’s economy, for the failure of California’s. But one doesn’t need to visit Texas to discover the plaque clogging the arteries of the Californian economy. Job-strangling snarls of high taxes, unfriendly regulations, excessive business costs, and state deficits have converged to strangle California’s economy.
Sacramento’s travesty of a tax policy kills the main engine of economic growth: the small business. California ranks 45th worst according to the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. At a time when California’s unemployment rate is the second highest in the nation, when more than one in five people are looking for work or attempting to find more work, this demonstrates the political elite don’t care about getting people jobs. Businesses with less than 50 employees employ half of all private sector employees, pay half of the entire private payroll, hire 80 percent of net new jobs annually, and hire half of all new technology graduates. These small firms form the core of American industry. The combination of the highest individual capital gains tax, the second highest personal tax rate and high property taxes discourage small business owners by punishing them for not incorporating. Simply operating a business as a sole proprietorship in California calls down business shuttering taxation. Of course, the 42nd worst corporate tax doesn’t help those that incorporate much either. Why do our representatives need to go to Texas to figure out this simple lesson: more taxation means less job creation.
If having a state government committed to competing for the heaviest tax burden in America wasn’t enough, California also has been distinguished with its crippling state and local business regulations. The annual cost of our state’s regulation is nearly $500 billion according to CSU Sacramento; this turns out to be $135,000 per small business. Regulations alone threaten several industries. For example, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo reports that it costs 11 times more to farm oranges in the San Joaquin Valley than in Texas. Water runoff, water usage, fertilizers, toads – all regulated, for the benefit of us Californians. And if you thought it was just hard for farmers, think again. Each Fast Food restaurant set up in California costs $200,000 more than the same restaurant would cost in Texas, simply based upon fees, environmental regulations, street maintenance costs and construction permits. These take two years to sort through. Again, why go to Texas to ask when the representatives themselves help make these laws? California persistency expands regulation in pursuit of some engineered good, but when these regulations threaten the prosperity and security of Californians, this persistency appears malicious.
The general business climate itself threatens job creation. California is perpetually on the edge of default. Because its tax code relies overwhelmingly on the rich and businesses, revenues tend to fall of the cliff in a downturn. The danger of this system can be seen today. Governor Brown is pushing for another tax increases to close the budget while California already drowns companies with its high tax rate. By refusing to broaden the tax base and cut the budget to relieve the pressure, California must be considered a profitability risk. At any moment, taxes may be increased and job creation decreased.
Not content with the traditional anti-business practices of taxation and regulation, Sacramento has gone one step further. The costs of energy, labor, and property have been artificially increased in California to further discourage businesses from reducing the crushing level of unemployment in California. Energy prices in California were seventh highest in the nation last year. Rather than easing the burden, Sacramento mandated even higher energy prices in the future by requiring one-third of all electricity generated to come from (expensive) renewables by 2020. Future energy prices will not be attracting businesses any time soon. Second, land prices in California are exorbitantly high. Any business requiring large tracts of land to operate cannot open in California without significant opportunity cost compared to other states. Finally, labor costs in California are uncompetitive. With a minimum wage higher than the national, relatively high living costs, and plenty of intrusive labor regulation, labor cost in California again drive businesses from our state. California does not exempt general managers from overtime salary requirements if the manager engages in non-managerial activities and starts overtime at eight hours a day rather than forty hours a week. Confusing and productivity stifling regulations such as these also open businesses to costly litigation. The combination of high taxes, destructive regulation, and a poor business climate, all exacerbated by those in Sacramento, have produced the employment crisis in California and contributed to the State deficit.
If we want California to achieve the prosperity it has been historically known for, to reverse the economic destruction government has wrought, those in Sacramento must get the message pro-business policies are needed. Unfortunately it seems to require a symbolic trip to Texas to start conversation. In fact, a better place to visit would be Detroit. Sadly, Sacramento believes in all that destroyed this former booming model of American industrial and middle class success. The urban decay, population decline, poverty, crime, and despair of modern day Detroit are the result of the flight of businesses. California’s economy has tumbled from the fifth largest in the world to the eighth in the span of a decade. Even Sacramento politicians should be able to see why. Whether they care that the next Detroit looms, that is another question.
Union Busting, Massachusetts Style
The Bay State’s heavily Democratic House strips municipal employee unions of their power to bargain most health benefits.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Pop quiz: What political party, in what state, this week passed a bill in the dead of night stripping public-sector unions of their collective- bargaining powers? Republicans in Wisconsin? The GOP in Ohio or Indiana?
Try Democrats in Massachusetts. Maybe the debate over public-sector benefits isn’t all that ideological after all.
That would be the view of Massachusetts Democratic Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, who late Tuesday led an overwhelming majority of his House in passing a bill divesting policemen, firefighters, teachers and other municipal employees of the power to collectively bargain most health-care benefits. The 111-42 vote took place at 11:30 at night, so as to avoid a mass of protesting union workers set to descend on the State House the next day. The cheek.
Then again, Mr. DeLeo (like so many Republicans) seems to understand that there is no longer a choice. The Bay State—precisely because it is the land of union power—is being crushed by its rich public-worker pay and benefits. Its several hundred thousand municipal employees have long had the power to collectively bargain key aspects of their health care—co-pays, deductibles, premiums.
Municipal health costs have as a result averaged near 11% growth annually—for a decade. The average premium is today 37% higher than in the private sector, and one-third higher than premiums for federal plans. The numbers have so exploded that personnel costs—salaries and benefits—are now eating up an astonishing 75% of local Massachusetts budgets.
That’s a tipping point that threatens widespread layoffs and the end of basic services. “The huge growth in municipal health-care costs is cannibalizing everything else,” Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, tells me. Mr. DeLeo and “other members of the legislature understand that what is at stake is their local schools and hometowns.” The unions, in short, have walked Massachusetts so far into a hole that even Democrats can no longer ignore the problem.
The DeLeo bill is a big political event (a “wow” moment, says Mr. Widmer), and it will save cities and towns an estimated $100 million in the upcoming budget year alone. Public employees would have 30 days to discuss health-plan changes with local officials, but at the end of that period officials can set co-pays and deductibles. In a concession, the bill allows local unions to retain bargaining power over their share of premiums, which is more power than what is currently allowed state employees.
Or maybe it is. Even as the press has obsessed about Wisconsin, Massachusetts—hitting a fiscal wall—has moved quietly on the union front. As early as 2009, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick signed a transportation bill that stripped bargaining power from public workers for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) by moving them into the state health-insurance system.Not that this has mollified labor. Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, was so irked he forgot to stick to the union script about “rights” and a “war” on the “middle class.” He skipped to the real outrage—that the 81 Democrats who voted for the bill were failing to play by the political rules. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns,” he complained. The unions would fight this to the “bitter end,” he vowed. “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.”
The MBTA had been dishing out crazy benefits to its 12,000 workers and retirees, paying an astounding two-thirds more in health-care costs per employee than those paid for state workers. (Only last week, Superior Court Judge Linda Giles tossed out the union lawsuit protesting the switch.) Facing an unfunded pension liability of some $20 billion, Gov. Patrick has also been pushing modest state pension reform. It’s a measure of the dire mess in other blue states that Democratic governors in New York (Andrew Cuomo) and California (Jerry Brown) have also dared murmur “pension reform.”
Mr. DeLeo isn’t backing down. Supported by an array of business and education groups, he applauded those who voted to allow cities and towns “to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services.” Still, the bill is no sure thing. It now moves to the Senate, where Democratic President Therese Murray has shown no similar backbone. And while Gov. Patrick applauded the House for taking an “important vote,” he won’t say whether he’d sign it. He’s more focused on running from Gov. Scott Walker. “This is not Wisconsin,” he insisted. “That’s not what the House did.”
Wrong. Wisconsin moved to rein in collective bargaining powers that are crushing the state. Massachusetts moved to rein in collective bargaining powers that are crushing the state. The only difference is that Democrats have chosen to portray Mr. Walker’s legislation as “union-busting” while presenting their own as necessary reform.
The public, and the press, should take them at their word that it’s the latter. The DeLeo bill is a game-changer. It’s big, concrete proof that public-employee benefit reform isn’t a political game. It’s a modern, fiscal necessity, the only thing standing between a state and budget ruin. Just ask Massachusetts Democrats.
Sometime last week Bryan Fischer, the Director of Issue Analysis for the American Family Association has taken a stand on one of the greatest threats this country is facing. Muslims. Fischer has gone on record to say that all imigrants should convert to Christianity. He was speaking specifically about Muslims.
Read the rest of this entry
Here is a brilliant analogy of liberals. It is reposted from Mangy Redbones blog and I have supplied a link to his blog. He has a lot of intelligent stuff to say about a lot of things. I would highly recommend his blog to your readership.
Blessings on all who read it.
Growling At Whatever Bothers Me
Jim Treacher and Professor Jacobson and many others are noting that the liberal website Wonkette decided to attack and mock (again) Sarah Palin’s three-year old disabled child. What is wrong with these people?
Here is what is wrong with them. Liberals claim to be tolerant, but are lying to themselves and everyone else about it.
Gays must be embraced in the name of inclusiveness. Conservatives must be shunned.
9/11 “truthers” are welcomed or politely ignored. Obama “birthers” are anathema.
Piss on a picture of Jesus and you are an artist. Piss on a Koran and you are an Islamaphobe. Embrace Christianity and you are a dangerous proponent of theocracy.
If you are black or hispanic or a woman running for office, that alone is a sufficient qualification for election (see Obama, President). Unless you are a conservative, in which case you are never qualified; in fact, you are a traitor who must be stopped at all costs (see Palin, Sarah).
Free speech is essential. Unless you are a conservative addressing a crowd in Madison, Wisconsin(see Althouse, here), or any college campus.
And on, and on. It is not diversity they want, but a certain kind of uniformity of views that correspond with their own. If your views fit within that framework, you will be welcomed. But if not, you will be attacked in the most hostile and unpleasant ways.
That is in part because a large percentage of liberals do not want a debate on the merits. They are losing the debate on the merits. So they want to stop debate.
To do so, they try to delegitimize those who disagree with them:
If you are against affirmative action, you hate minorities and women. Let’s never discuss whether affirmative action is appropriate, necessary, successful, or harmful even to those who “benefit” from it.
If you are skeptical of global warming claims or the policies advanced to combat it, you hate the environment, or are in bed with big oil, or are “anti-science.” Let’s never discuss whether the models actually predict anything accurately.
If you are against uncontrolled spending, you want grandma to starve and disabled children (such as the child being mocked by Wonkette) to be abandoned in the street. Let’s not consider what happens to grandma and kids when the Ponzi scheme collapses.
If you don’t want to shovel ever more money into public schools, you hate children. Let’s not consider why we have had continual massive increases in school funding without achieving better results.
If you don’t want above-market public employee pay and benefits, you want to destroy the middle class. Let’s not consider whether public employees deserve to be paid more and have better benefits and more job security than those who pay for them.
The problem for liberals is that they lose these debates when they have to argue the merits. So they attack, deride, shout down, and distract as much as possible.
That is, essentially, what the whole new civility nonsense was this Spring. Liberals are not in favor of civility in discourse. The most vile stuff comes from the left, not the right. Instead, they want to impede the ability of conservatives to present their arguments.
Conservatives must push back, refuse to be silenced, call them out on their arrogance, disingenuousness, and shallowness, and continue to fight the good fight. We must, in the immortal words of Chief Lone Watie, “Endeavor to persevere.”
UPDATE: At NRO’s The Corner, Mark Kirkorian has similar thoughts in the context of immigration. A taste:
[The goal of the the open-borders smear campaign against immigration skeptics] was to drive all immigration skeptics out of the public debate by labeling any skepticism about immigration as inherently racist. In other words, to make questioning mass immigration the same as questioning the desegregation of lunch counters. . . .
Metaphorically speaking, they don’t have to learn our language because everyone they know speaks theirs. On the other hand, restrictionists, as the underdog faction perpetually on the defensive, have no choice but to try to understand the concerns and thinking of the expansionists. This is a phenomenon people on the right are very familiar with; conservatives at the most left-wing colleges, for instance, are often better prepared for intellectual combat than those from more conservative schools because they’ve been forced to engage and think through the arguments of their pervasive opponents rather than just dismiss them.